Remanded

Kamu Miji and 17 Ors. v. Segi Sangchoju Miji and 20 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Nov 2024RFA/11/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of a title suit over land at Lada Circle, dismissed at threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(d) on the basis of the defendants' written statement and an agreement dated 08.05.2007. Both sides conceded such reliance is impermissible; the High Court set aside the order and remanded for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.09.2023 set aside and quashed; matter remanded to Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa for proper adjudication.

Kamu Miji and 17 Ors. Vs Segi Sangchoju Miji and 20 Ors. — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/14

¶2

GAHC040015142023

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : RFA/11/2023

¶5

Kamu Miji and 17 Ors. S/o Late Sawu Miji, permanent resident of village Kampa, Lada Circle, P.O Lada, P.S Khenewa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

2: Kalang Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Late Dairu Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

3: Solung Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Late Dongling Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶8

4: Kamchi Sangchoju Age:

¶9

Page No.# 2/14

¶10

Occupation : S/o Late Dainu Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶11

5: Sangchey Sangchoju Age: Occupation : S/o Late Dainu Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶12

6: Metung Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Late Dongli Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶13

7: Lupa Sangchoju Age: Occupation : S/o Late Besai Sangchoju permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶14

8: Apang Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Late Van Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle

¶15

Page No.# 3/14

¶16

P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶17

9: Rome Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Metung Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Dolo Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Late Vam Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶18

11: Tamar Puroik Age: Occupation : S/o Late Chai Puroik permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶19

12: Neroj Sangchoju Age: Occupation : S/o Late Diji Sangchoju permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶20

Page No.# 4/14

¶21

13: Changtung Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Metung Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Medi Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Late Vam Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶22

15: Apik Miji Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Metung Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶23

16: Rajiv Sanchoju Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Kamchi Sangchoju permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶24

17: Roshan Sangchoju Age: Occupation :

¶25

Page No.# 5/14

¶26

S/o Shri Kalong Miji permanent resident of village Kampa Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

Segi Sangchoju Miji and 20 Ors. S/o Late Nishang Miji, permanent resident of village Kampa, Lada Circle, P.O Lada, P.S Khenewa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Tapuk Sangchoju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Phujung Sangchoju permanent resident of village Nabolang Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Laigu Sangchoju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Khandu Sangchoju permanent resident of village Nabolang Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Tongla Sangchoju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Sasu Sangchoju permanent resident of village Nabolang Lada Circle P.O Lada

¶29

Page No.# 6/14

¶30

P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Solung Sangchoju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Aplong Sangchoju permanent resident of village Lada Town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Kaman Miji (Khaduju) Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Wuli Miji permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Sangio Naloiju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Lhupa Naloiju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:Kalo Sangchoju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Khiongcho Sangchoju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶31

Page No.# 7/14

¶32

9:Dirang Naloiju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Lhupa Naloiju permanent resident of village Chongkabam Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:Lungmai Miji Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Rajen Miji permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 11:Apang Khaduju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Shri Dongrong Khaduju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 12:Gyamtang Miji Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Lungloi Miji permanent resident of village Salang Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 13:Nichang Miji Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Changtung Miji

¶33

Page No.# 8/14

¶34

permanent resident of village Nabolang Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 14:Lam Miji Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Ruju Miji permanent resident of village Nabolang Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 15:Deka Miji Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Kagyang Miji permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 16:Buli (Anand) Sangchoju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Rai Sangchoju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 17:Enu Naloiju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Sibiyo Naloiju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa

¶35

Page No.# 9/14

¶36

East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 18:Sonari Naloiju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Sibiyo Naloiju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 19:Jumsang Naloiju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Lhupa Naloiju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 20:Doriang Sangchoju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Kojo Sangchoju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 21:Tafi Naloiju Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Late Rinchin Naloiju permanent resident of village Lada town Lada Circle P.O Lada P.S Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh

¶37

Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tama, J Tsering,Sumit Chhetri,Habung Aape,T Lampung

¶38

Page No.# 10/14

¶39

Advocate for the Respondent : T Tsering, Tayom Gamoh,Logsang Yountan,Dejum Tally,Tsering Gyatso

¶40

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Date : 07-11-2024

¶43

Heard Mr. S. Chhetri, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 7, 14 and 16.

¶44

2. As the rest of the respondents did not appear, despite service of notice upon, the case proceeded ex-parte against them.

¶45

3. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 read with order 41 of the CPC for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 15.09.2023, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa whereby and by which the learned Court, according to the appellant has erroneously dismissed the Title Suit No. 01/2023 by holding that the suit is not maintainable on account of stopple by heavily relying on the written statement and its document filed by the defendants.

¶46

4. The case in brief is that the appellants, 17 in numbers, have jointly own and possess a private land measuring One Crore Three Lakh Square Meters (Area 10.30 Km) located at Lada Circle which is bounded by in the North: Sachung village/Pachuk River, in the South: Wakke and Grangjing village, in the East: Lada Headquarter/Waki Nalah and in the West: Sachung village/Walley Nalah (herein after referred to as Suit Land).

¶47

5. In the said suit land, the Government of India proposed to construct a

¶48

Page No.# 11/14

¶49

High-Altitude Hill Road from Lada to Besai and accordingly, land acquisitions notifications were issued by the Department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh as well as by the Deputy Commissioner, Seppa. During the process of survey and public hearing for disbursement of compensation, the respondents surprisingly for the first time have raised objection by filing representation dated 09.11.2021 before the DLRSO, Seppa disputing the said suit land. After exhausting all the available means of remedy, the appellants have filed the Title Suit No. 01/2023 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa, praying for decree of right, title, ownership, interest and possession over the suit land.

¶50

6. The said suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement and raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the Suit No. 01/2023 inter alia on the ground that, “on dated 08.05.2024, the plaintiffs along with the defendants have executed a Deed of Agreement before the Executive Magistrate, Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh declaring their ancestral land as common land…” And since the land in question were made common by executing a deed of agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the suit is not maintainable.

¶51

7. On consideration of the written statement filed by the respondent and hearing the parties on preliminary issues, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa by the impugned order/decree, dated 15.09.2023, has rejected the Title Suit. It is submitted that while rejecting the suit, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa has heavily relied upon the written statement filed by the respondents and the documents annexed thereto, more particularly, the agreement dated 08.05.2007, stating therein that some of the plaintiffs were also the signatories to the said agreement dated 08.05.2007 and the

¶52

Page No.# 12/14

¶53

plaintiffs have supressed the material facts while filing the suit.

¶54

8. Mr. Chhetri, learned counsel for the appellants further submits that while considering the case under order 7 Rule 11(d), only the averments mad in the plaint will have to be referred; the written statement and the annexures appended therein cannot be taken into consideration. However, in the instant case, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa have heavily relied upon the written statement file by the defendants/respondents and the annexures, more particularly, the agreement dated 08.05.2007 which is not permitted under the law.

¶55

9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others reported in (2021) 9 SSC 99 . The relevant paragraph 25 is reproduced herein below:

¶56

“ 25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarized as follows:

¶57

25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to;

¶58

25.2. The defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application;

¶59

25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the ‘previous suit’ is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and

¶60

Page No.# 13/14

¶61

25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.

¶62

10. For the reasons stated above and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others (supra), the learned counsel for the appellants prays for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order/decree dated 15.09.2023.

¶63

11. Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 7, 14 and 16 fairly submits that Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Further, the order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other materials including the written statement in the case. However, in the instant case, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa while rejecting the suit has not only considered the written statement but has also relied upon the annexures thereto, i.e. the agreement dated 08.05.2007 which is specifically barred. Hence, Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel while conceding the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants prays that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa for proper adjudication of the suit.

¶64

12. Upon hearing and consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also, as agreed upon by them, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can be remanded back to the trial court for proper adjudication. Accordingly, this matter is remanded back to the learned Court of

¶65

Page No.# 14/14

¶66

the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa with a direction for proper adjudication of the case in accordance with law.

¶67

13 . As a result, the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa in Title Suit No. 01/2023 is hereby set aside and quashed.

¶68

14. With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of.

¶69

15 . The TCR, if any be returned immediately.

¶70

JUDGE

¶71

Comparing Assistant

Kamu Miji and 17 Ors. v. Segi Sangchoju Miji and 20 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamu Miji and 17 Ors. v. Segi Sangchoju Miji and 20 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj Pao Vs The State of Ap

Nayandeep Deka Baruah @ Nayandeep Sonowal Vs The State of Ap

Smti Susmita Kumari Roy Vs The State of Ap

Karmar Loyi and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Ap

Smti Dumsap Tajo @ Pappi Tajo Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Yulam Peter and Anr. Vs The State of Ap